They Are Billions - Zombies Meet AOE

Best to buy now or will the price go up after the campaign releases?

Umm , didn’t the price already increase to 29.99 ? I checked, and it did on May 27th!

So… wait for sale. :)

I wish devs would do things like giving early adopters a free dlc/expansion that they would charge late comers instead of doing a price bump at launch.

Really counter productive. Instead of launching with an attractive sale, it actually harms sales to price bump at launch, which is critical to a title’s success.

We have no evidence that the bump harms sales at launch. I can think of other games that had a similar bump that have been very successful.

Given my 175 hours or so in the game, which is the most I have had in an EA title since Kerbal Space Program, I believe it is worth what they are asking for it.

rI was thinking more of a straight forward application of demand and supply. It would go against all economic theory that a discount at launch would not benefit sales as opposed to a price rise. Not talking about overall revenue though, but I think games would come under an elastic model.)

Stardock did exactly that with GalCiv III and others. The community reaction was not roses and chocolate.

If they priced it at $1 on release they would get yet more sales but they do not because it is all about overall revenue.

Raising the price at/near launch has become quite commonplace. Parkitect, Kenshi and Rise to Ruin are all titles that I believe had price increases near/at launch. Those of us who are willing to test those titles and take the risk in EA got a lower price. While free DLC would be nice - I would not complain about that - that has a significant cost to the developer whereas raising the price does not and still (indirectly) shows appreciation to those who purchased it in EA.

What drives me nuts is when they have a sale price on launch that was less than the EA price. That is kind of sticking it to your best customers.

I do agree that “penalizing” Early Access supporters is harmful to overall EA development.

Which is why I was asking if there is a better way. A price increase is just plain runs counter to pricing theory. I for one, would be priced out of a purchase for such a title.

Is it against pricing theory though? Would not a completed product upon release be at its highest value? Would that not be the best chance to maximize revenue? Rimworld had a similar price increase on release. Did sales suffer? Did Parkitect suffer for raising the release price? I do not know if that is the case or not but it would seem to me that the release price should be the peak price. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the pricing theory you are espousing.

Either way the game is well worth it if that style of game appeals to you. IMO it has never been done better and I am greatly looking forward to the campaign, tech tree and all sorts of other goodies.

The simple answer is:
You will sell more units at $20 as opposed to $30.

I’m not picking a fight. I just think games operates on an elastic model on the non-extreme price points. Despite your assertion otherwise, I dont believe an increase in price brings in more revenue.

Will you sell 50% more units at $20 than $30? If not, then you lose money by pricing cheaper.

If you are arguing for an inelastic demand and supply curve for a game that is relatively unknown, that’s your call.

I’ll just wait till a sales. Too many games too little time, and cash :)

This is not how any of this works.

There’s no such thing as an “elastic model”. Price elasticity is basically a continuum; there are degrees in play. This is a specific game, not “games”, and there are many variables that will impact how it performs and not just the sale price of the game. The game itself has an indeterminate elasticity at this time, as we have no sales data to compare EA sales versus launch just yet (or sales data versus normal price data). Valve probably helped determine the launch price. It is well within the realm of possibility that the game will make more money at $30 than $20.

There is no simple answer, honestly. Just whatever data Valve has and best guesses and some luck

1.0 will be out today, around 1pm I think.

And a fan created art for a Sarah Palin-esq character just for @tomchick , ok…ok the part about it being just for Tom might be slightly untrue!

Wait, this is actually going to 1.0? I had no idea it was imminent. What a pleasant surprise. Especially since they made me a steampunk Palin elf. I’ve always wanted one of those!


Wow, it comes out of EA today? That’s awesome. I haven’t touched this game in months anticipating that it would be fantastic when it was finally done. Now there’s a campaign mode as well as improved survival mode. I’ll be playing this all night.

There are also quite a few custom maps available via workshop.

Woohoo! This has been on the “c’mon, finish EA already!” shelf for a minute.

Is there a good video summary of all the changes made since it went into EA? I’ve played about 15 hours of EA 7-8 months ago but I’ve put it aside until now. Not sure what has changed since then aside from the looming campaign mode.

I do not know if there is a video summary. The vast majority of the work has been on the campaign but off the top of my head:

  1. Polish, polish, polish. The core game is the same but everything has been refined. Things like the flat map view were not in the game when I was playing. Areas like health generation were tweaked
  2. Adding in Giants, Wonders and a couple of other buildings like the Inn
  3. Villages of Doom were added
  4. Multi-language support
  5. Survival mode
  6. Steam Workshop support / scenario editor
  7. Chase mode, path way points and other unit commands

The campaign adds in a tech tree, different map types, different mission types, etc.